APP - Whats he afraid of?

Southern Man said:
Actually, as usual, I'm right on this. In spite of your vehement opinion.
Click to expand...

the definition of torture in the UN treaty applies to the United States and everyone who serves it....

it IS the supreme law of the land.

sorry....any opinion you have to the contrary is inaccurate.
 
maineman said:
the definition of torture in the UN treaty applies to the United States and everyone who serves it....

it IS the supreme law of the land.

sorry....any opinion you have to the contrary is inaccurate.
Click to expand...

Actually, it does not apply to non-signers of the UN treaty, which of course means terrorists. An applicable analogy would be that it is an offense to point a loaded gun at someone, unless that person poses a threat, then it is perfectly legal.
 
Southern Man said:
Actually, it does not apply to non-signers of the UN treaty, which of course means terrorists. An applicable analogy would be that it is an offense to point a loaded gun at someone, unless that person poses a threat, then it is perfectly legal.
Click to expand...

wrong. it is not a treaty that only applies between citizens of two signatory countries...it applies to how those serving signatory countries treat anyone else.

sorry. read the treaty. I have.
 
maineman said:
wrong. it is not a treaty that only applies between citizens of two signatory countries...it applies to how those serving signatory countries treat anyone else.

sorry. read the treaty. I have.
Click to expand...
I've read the treaty, and like any other law or regulation, does not exist in a vacuum. It is therefore subject to the same legal situation that makes pointing a gun at someone legal or illegal depending on the prior actions of the "pointee". Sorry.
 
Southern Man said:
I've read the treaty, and like any other law or regulation, does not exist in a vacuum. It is therefore subject to the same legal situation that makes pointing a gun at someone legal or illegal depending on the prior actions of the "pointee". Sorry.
Click to expand...

nowhere in the UN treaty does it state or even imply that one must be a citizen of a signatory nation in order to be protected by the treaty.

sorry.
 
maineman said:
nowhere in the UN treaty does it state or even imply that one must be a citizen of a signatory nation in order to be protected by the treaty.

sorry.
Click to expand...
Again, like any other law or regulation, the UN treaty does not exist in a vacuum. Sorry.

So if you have nothing new to add...
 
Damocles said:
I believe he is thinking about people who work in the CIA, afraid to do their jobs because what they are told is okay in one instance suddenly may not be okay in the next. I think he may believe that we are tying the hands of the newly rebuilt HUMINT while it is still in its juvenile stage...
Click to expand...

Do you really belive that?
 
Southern Man said:
Again, like any other law or regulation, the UN treaty does not exist in a vacuum. Sorry.

So if you have nothing new to add...
Click to expand...

it is YOU who are unable to refute the fact that torture, as defined by the UN treaty, is forbidden by the supreme law of OUR land... forbidden against ANYONE.

sorry.

so..if YOU have nothing to add other than your weasly wiggling excuses as to why a treaty signed by our country is not the supreme law of the land, why not do us both a big favor and shut the fuck up?

thanks in advance.
 
maineman said:
it is YOU who are unable to refute the fact that torture, as defined by the UN treaty, is forbidden by the supreme law of OUR land... forbidden against ANYONE.

sorry.

so..if YOU have nothing to add other than your weasly wiggling excuses as to why a treaty signed by our country is not the supreme law of the land, why not do us both a big favor and shut the fuck up?

thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Again, the situation with the UN treaty is analogous to many situations that makes something legal or illegal depending on the prior actions of the parties involved. This includes wiretapping, searches of private property, and detention when there is "probable cause".

So in spite of your wish that the UN supersedes the Constitution as well as common law, it doesn't. Sorry.
 
Southern Man said:
Again, the situation with the UN treaty is analogous to many situations that makes something legal or illegal depending on the prior actions of the parties involved. This includes wiretapping, searches of private property, and detention when there is "probable cause".

So in spite of your wish that the UN supersedes the Constitution as well as common law, it doesn't. Sorry.
Click to expand...

the UN treaty is, per the constitution, the supreme law of the land.... and your explanation is without merit and no such allowances for torture are contained therein.

sorry.
 
maineman said:
the UN treaty is, per the constitution, the supreme law of the land.... and your explanation is without merit and no such allowances for torture are contained therein.

sorry.
Click to expand...

Sorry wrong again, maineman. The constitution is greater than treaties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top